X-Message-Number: 20995 Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 01:26:30 +0100 From: Henri Kluytmans <> Subject: Invalid arguments against MNT, on and on... ( MNT = Molecular Nanotechnology = Molecular Manufacturing, etc... ) I wrote : >> A rod in the center of the binding site will protrude when it's >> part of the rim is located inside the reservoir and will >> mechanically press the molecule out off the binding site. >> (Of course this operation requires some energy.) Yvan Bozzonetti replied : >This is mere sci-fi. Nope. >I dislike profoundly sci-fi ( many years ago I have read a lot of >them, so I know about their -lack of- value). I am not religious >neither. Here, I find both: sci-fi and religious (mere faith) >thinking in thechnological disguise. Hmm, ... ehh ... sigh... :( By the way, I'm not religious too, and I always try to avoid religious thinking. Furthermore, the term science-fiction implies that the science does not exist (yet). Because, so far I have not yet encountered any valid scientific arguments against MNT, I keep assuming that the MNT concept is scientifically correct. But of course, the technology does not exist yet. Therefore you could call it "techno-fiction". The term science-fiction I preserve to describe things like time-travel, faster-than-light, parallel worlds, etc... >Your explanation above prove only one thing: you see a nanodevice as a >classical object, not a quantum one. At that scale, everything is sticky, >vibrating, soft, not well localized. A rod, hard and rigid is a bad fiction. This only demonstrates that you didn't look into the nano-MNT concept very well. You utter the same invalid arguments like many "so-called" experts did (e.g. Whitesides, ). They only show a misconception of MNT and also a misunderstanding about things at the molecular scale. Maybe you should read this debate, it's about an article in the Scientific American that contained some of these same misconceptions and invalid arguments (and also a lot of non-scientific critic) : http://www.foresight.org/SciAmDebate/SciAmResponse.html#locBG And this : http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/nanocritics.html === Although you can read the explanation about why these issues not good arguments against MNT in the online book : "Engines of creation" (for the layman). And if you want it explained to you in scientific terms, in "Nanosystems", I will tell them to you : You say that at the atomic scale ( 0.1 - 10 nanometer) : 1) "everything is vibrating" Yes, everything is vibrating. But that should not interfere with MNT concept of building things from molecular parts with atomic precision because the internal structural components have relatively high stiffness, For a diamond rod of 10nm length and 1 nm width at 310 Kelvin the resulting positional uncertainty from thermal vibrations is about 0.02 nm. The size of a C-atom is about 0.3 nm, and the smallest atom, the H-atom is about 0.1nm. Because the inaccuracy is much less than the size of the atoms, thermal vibrations therefore should be no real obstacle against placement of molecular parts with atomic precision. 2) "everything is sticky" Nope. There do exist very sticky type of molecules indeed, for example free-radicals. But even for most of these molecules the stickyness is localized, so it is still possible to handle the molecule without interfering with the sticky part. Remember that the internal environment of nanosystems will be made inert (i.e. vacuum) and the location of every atom and molecule will be known, no loose atoms/molecules should linger around. And two objects made of diamond, with their surfaces terminated with hydrogen atoms, will not stick together. At atomic scales not everything is sticky. 3) everything is soft / not well localized The fuzzyness of a particle is inversely proportional to its mass. For example light particles like electrons are indeed quite fuzzy. But the atomic nucleus is not. Indeed the border of an atom is a little fuzzy, but this fuzzyness is less than it's diameter. Therefore this fuzzyness forms no obstacle in manipulating atoms and molecules as building blocks. The fact that atomice force / scanning tunneling microscopes can show surfaces with atomic detail already demonstrates that atoms as a whole are not fuzzy at these scales. ==== >I am a strong advocate of both, avdanced science and >technology, but as good sci-fi (if it exist), nothing >must contradict known facts. ... The MNT concept doesn't contradict any known facts. >And thinking about nanoscale objects as macroscopic classical ones >is plainly wrong. Certain aspects of macroscale engineering can be down-scaled and some aspects cannot. For example, electromagnets are far less attractive for nanoscale systems, since magnetic fields do not scale down to nanoscale very well. The corresponding magnetic forces become minute in nanoscale systems (e.g. compared to chemical bond strength). But nanosized motors could be built based on electrostatic forces in stead. Electric circuits cannot be downscaled to nano-scale without taking into account the quantum nature of electrons. However most mechanical mechanisms can be downscaled. Except for the frictional force which doesnt scale down at all, but mechanical nano-systems can be made where frictional force is not applicable. For example chemical computer analysis of molecular gears have been made (by Nasa) and seem to show that they should work. See Merkle's page for more info http://www.zyvex.com/nano/ (To circumvent electronics at nanoscale Drexler proposed computers operating by using mechanical logic. Because the functioning is based on the movement of molecular structures, in stead of electrons, quantum effects are less of an issue.) But you can take a look at chapter 2 of nanosystems yourself, it's about "Scaling Laws" and it's online!, see : http://www.foresight.org/Nanosystems/toc.html#c2 >When I speak about nanoscale devices built on a clay crystal >surface, I know what material to use, how to handle them, >where to buy the tools for that, how to find money to finance >this. To me, this idea looks not so much different from what current lithographic is accomplishing now and in the near future. However MNT is totally new concept for building objects with some inherent characteristics (atomic building blocks, self-replication ) that will make it revolutionize our world completely. >Clearly, we have not the same idea of reality :-) Maybe you don't see clearly yet. :) I suggest you take a better look at the MNT concept, and also at the scientific arguments for it (i.e. Nanosystems). >Well, as said Johnny Burnette 40 years ago, keep on dreamin'. Yes, I do like to dream. But MNT is not a dream, it's a foreseeable technology with a scientific basis. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=20995